The Government of Jammu and Kashmir has recently stepped up efforts to implement the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, with the Ministry of Tribal Affairs and the Union Territory administration reiterating their commitment to recognizing the rights of eligible forest-dwelling communities while safeguarding forests from fresh encroachments. The renewed focus has once again brought the issue of forest rights into public discussion. Yet the questions surrounding forests are much older than the law itself. They concern not only ownership of land but also the relationship between people, nature, and the State-a relationship that has evolved over thousands of years.
Long before governments drew boundaries or enacted laws, forests were humanity’s earliest home. They provided food, shelter, medicine, and security to the first human communities. Over time, forests became sources of livelihood for tribal societies, symbols of spiritual life, and later, objects of political authority and economic exploitation. The story of forest rights in India is therefore not simply a legal history; it is the story of how changing ideas of governance transformed humanity’s oldest relationship with nature.
When Forests Were Home
Archaeological evidence suggests that some of the earliest inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent lived in forests and river valleys. Hunter-gatherer communities survived by collecting fruits, roots, honey, medicinal plants, and by hunting wild animals. At this stage of human history, forests were not viewed as property. There was little distinction between people and their natural surroundings. Communities depended upon forests for survival, but they also understood the limits imposed by nature.
As societies gradually became more organized, many communities adopted agriculture while others continued to depend primarily on forests. These forest-dwelling groups eventually evolved into the diverse tribal societies that still inhabit many parts of India. For them, forests were not merely economic resources; they were central to their culture, identity, and spiritual beliefs. Anthropologists have long described this relationship as a symbiotic one, in which forests sustained communities and communities, in turn, developed customary practices that helped conserve forests. Traditional norms discouraged excessive extraction, and forests were treated as community resources rather than private property.
Even today, forests remain integral to tribal livelihoods
The Age of Customary Rights
As agriculture expanded and kingdoms emerged, forests continued to occupy a central place in India’s civilizational landscape. They were not seen as empty wilderness waiting to be conquered but as living spaces where nature, spirituality, and human society coexisted. Ancient Indian literature repeatedly portrays forests as places of reflection, learning, and transformation rather than isolation.
The Vedas and Upanishads describe forests as sacred spaces where sages sought knowledge and composed philosophical treatises. It is no coincidence that many of the Upanishads-texts that shaped Indian philosophical thought-were composed in aranyakas, literally meaning “forest texts.” The forest was regarded as an ideal setting for contemplation, detached from the distractions of settled life.
Great epic further illustrate this intimate relationship. Much of the Ramayana unfolds in the forests of central India . During his exile, Rama found refuge among forest communities and forged friendships with figures such as Nishadraj Guha, the chief of the Nishadas(Tribal community), while his encounter with Shabari remains one of the most enduring examples of the spiritual and social significance attached to forest-dwelling communities. These narratives suggest that forests in ancient India were not perceived as empty wilderness but as inhabited spaces where tribal groups, ascetics, and settled societies interacted with one another.
The Colonial Turning Point
The relationship between forests and people changed fundamentally with the arrival of British colonial rule. Unlike earlier rulers, the colonial administration viewed forests primarily as commercial assets. Timber was urgently needed for railway sleepers, shipbuilding, mining, and military infrastructure. To secure a steady supply of these resources, the British introduced a series of forest laws that steadily transferred control of forests from local communities to the colonial state in the name of national interest.
The Indian Forest Act of 1865 marked the beginning of this transformation by empowering the government to acquire forest lands and regulate access. The Indian Forest Act of 1878 went much further, classifying forests into Reserved Forests, Protected Forests, and Village Forests. Reserved Forests were placed almost entirely under government control, and communities could no longer exercise many of the customary rights they had enjoyed for generations. The Indian Forest Act of 1927 consolidated these powers, strengthening the state’s authority over forests and forest produce.
These laws introduced stringent restrictions that fundamentally altered the lives of forest-dependent communities. Grazing cattle in many forest areas was prohibited or heavily regulated. Shifting cultivation, practiced by several tribal communities for centuries, was discouraged or banned. Collecting timber, fuelwood, bamboo, resin, honey, and other forest produce required official permission in many areas. Hunting was restricted, duties were imposed on timber, and several traditional activities were declared forest offences punishable by fines or imprisonment. Communities that had once managed forests through customary practices suddenly found themselves treated as trespassers on lands they had inhabited for generations.
Independent India: Freedom Without Forest Rights
When India became independent in 1947, political power changed hands, but the way forests were governed changed very little. The colonial administration had viewed forests as state property, and independent India largely inherited the same legal framework. The Indian Forest Act of 1927, enacted under British rule, continued to regulate forests, while the priorities of a young nation shifted towards development, industrialization, and nation-building.
The National Forest Policy of 1952 reflected these priorities. Forests were valued for the timber they supplied, the soil they protected, and the role they played in supporting economic growth. Yet, for the millions of tribal families who had lived in forests for generations, little changed. Their customary rights remained largely unrecognized, and decisions about forests continued to be taken from government offices rather than village communities. The post-Independence policy largely carried forward the colonial model of state control, leaving forest-dependent communities on the margins of decision-making.
As India’s economy expanded, so did the demand for land. Forests made way for dams, mines, highways, industries, and reservoirs that promised national development. While these projects undoubtedly contributed to economic growth, they often came at a heavy cost for those who called the forests home. Families were displaced, villages disappeared, and communities lost not only their livelihoods but also places that carried generations of memory and cultural significance.
For most tribal communities, a forest is far more than a source of income. It is where festivals are celebrated, ancestors are remembered, medicinal plants are gathered, and traditional knowledge is passed from one generation to the next. Forests were inseparable part of tribal identity rather than merely an economic resource.
A Change in Perspective
By the late twentieth century, policymakers began to realize that protecting forests by excluding local communities was neither practical nor just. Across the country, environmental movements and tribal rights campaigns questioned the belief that forest dwellers were responsible for forest degradation. Increasingly, researchers pointed out that many of these communities had protected forests through customary practices long before formal conservation laws came into existence.
This shift found expression in the National Forest Policy of 1988, which marked a turning point in India’s approach to forest governance. Unlike earlier policies, it acknowledged that the well-being of forests and the well-being of forest-dependent communities were closely linked. Instead of treating local people as intruders, it encouraged their participation in protecting and managing forests. The policy laid the foundation for Joint Forest Management and reflected a growing recognition that conservation could succeed only when communities became partners rather than outsiders.
The process gathered further momentum with the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), which strengthened the role of Gram Sabhas’ in managing local resources. But the question remained: how could the State recognize rights that communities had exercised for centuries but had never been formally recognized.
The answer came with the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
The J&K Forest Act, 1930 (A Colonial Framework) To FRA 2006
In Jammu & Kashmir, the Forest Rights Act remained unimplemented for nearly fourteen years after its enactment in 2006. It was only after the reorganization of the erstwhile state into a Union Territory in 2019 that the Act was extended to the region.
For decades, the nomadic tribes of Jammu and Kashmir were legally invisible. While the rest of India implemented the 2006 Forest Rights Act, J&K fell back on a draconian 1930 law that essentially branded indigenous herders as trespassers. Ancestral grazing routes weren’t a recognized right for the Gujjars and Bakarwals-they were a rented privilege. Families survived on flimsy, temporary permits that forest guards could revoke on a whim. It was a system built on exclusion, forcing generations of traditional forest dwellers to live as perpetual squatters on the exact lands their ancestors had stewarded for centuries.
The political overhaul of 2019 finally broke this decades-long deadlock, extending the 2006 Forest Rights Act to Jammu and Kashmir and fundamentally rewriting the region’s relationship with its indigenous communities. Today, the very nomadic tribes once criminalized as trespassers are being handed legal titles to their ancestral grazing lands. The shift from paper promises to ground reality is steadily taking shape: by mid-2026, the UT administration had officially distributed over 6,000 forest rights titles, with a massive push toward securing community rights for traditional pastures and forest produce. Grassroots village councils, long sidelined by a rigid bureaucracy, are now the very engines mapping and verifying these land claims. While administrative friction still exists, the paradigm has permanently shifted. For the Gujjars, Bakarwals, and Gaddi-Sippis, the forests of Jammu and Kashmir are no longer a precarious, rented shelter-they are finally, legally, home.
These developments highlight the central challenge facing forest governance today. Protecting forests and protecting the rights of forest-dependent communities are not necessarily opposing goals. The real test lies in implementing the law fairly, identifying genuine claimants through due process, preventing misuse, and ensuring that conservation does not come at the cost of justice-or that justice does not become a pretext for environmental degradation.
Contact the author.
First Published by Daily Excelsior on 10 September, 2026.